Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is the third change over a series of Bills relating to arrangements for the repayment of moneys supposedly owed in respect of cases of fraud arising from the provision of misleading information or the concealment of facts. FLAC has, once again, outlined the dangers associated with these provisions in its submission on the Bill. What we must bear in mind is that an allegation is not fact. If someone is involved in fraud, he or she should be charged with fraud. I am dealing with a case where a woman is waiting for the Department to charge her with fraud. In fact, she has asked to be charged in order that she can disprove the allegation that she misled the Department for the past 12 years. This person has documentation from the Department which clearly shows it was, in fact, the other way around. She is eager to be charged in order that she can clear her name. In the meantime, her social welfare payment has been discontinued and she has been told she must repay the amount of the supposed fraud. She does not, however, have the wherewithal or means to do so.

This is a woman who is adamant she has been upfront all along in her dealings with the Department and is determined to see the matter dealt with in court. She took the time and effort to obtain her files under the freedom of information regime. Strange things are evident in those files but not from her end. They seem to have arisen for a very particular reason within the Department and go back ten years. By contrast, where a person wishes to recover overpaid taxes, it is not possible to go back more than four years. Even though the State has often wrongly withheld taxes from people, whether through an administrative error or otherwise, taxpayers are obliged to seek repayment within a four-year period or it is hard luck. In the case of the Department of Social Protection, on the other hand, it is going back up to 30 years in some cases for repayments of often small amounts. In one case I have seen, a woman was told in writing that she owed €19.20 since February 2005 and was asked to pay it back at €2 per week. She said there was no problem about it and she would bring in the coins. That did not happen in the end. There must be fair procedure and some common sense in these matters. The question arises as to whether a statute of limitations is applicable in such cases. If one makes an allegation of fraud against someone, I presume there is a period within which that allegation must be put directly to the person concerned. Will the Minister comment on that?

Since the recent change in the maximum applicable deduction for overpayment from €2 per week to 15% of the payment, issues have arisen in respect of how that percentage is calculated. In the case, for instance, of a separated woman who has an order for the payment of €65 per week in maintenance from her former partner and who is making a 15% repayment, there is a significant difference in how much money she will end up with in her pocket every week depending on how the 15% deduction is calculated. If it is calculated after the €65 payment is subtracted from €188, then she will come out with €105, 15% of €123 - what she receives once the maintenance payment is taken out - being €18. If, on the other hand, the 15% deduction is calculated on the full €188 instead of €123 and then the €65 payment is taken out, she will end up with €95. In other words, she will be €10 worse off. No woman who is making a full declaration of maintenance should suffer a consequence based on the way the Department calculates these matters. Such deductions should never be calculated in a penal way. It should always be about leaving the person, who is in distressed circumstances, with as much money as possible.

The Department will still get its 15%-----